For the past month Armenia has coasted on a wave of popular emotion and international goodwill, ever since peaceful protests forced the resignation of veteran leader Serzh Sargsyan and brought to power opposition leader Nikol Pashinian.
Pashinian, who is 42, has appointed a new government even more youthful than himself. He has also promised to crack down on corruption and clean up the old oligarchic system. A country that many had characterized as isolated, stuck, and completely dependent on Russia has confounded stereotypes and now looks dynamic—trendy even. The revolution is still only half-finished, but for the first time in two decades, Armenia is a good news story.
Thomas de Waal
More from this author...Yet all this promise and hope could be swept away if Armenia’s new government gets one thing wrong: its stance on the unresolved Nagorny Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan, now three decades old. The tired negotiating process could certainly do with some shaking up—but not too much.
In his first actions and comments on the conflict, Pashinian has certainly shaken things up. He has spoken more like a member of the crowd than a diplomat, saying that Karabakh “is an inseparable part” of Armenia. The day after being elected prime minister, Pashinian flew to Armenian-run Karabakh to take part in the annual victory ceremonies on May 9. There he insisted that the Armenians of Karabakh “should take a direct part in negotiations on the settlement of the conflict and sit at the negotiating table.”
The tough stance can in part be put down to domestic politics. Pashinian is following in the footsteps of two Karabakh Armenians who had fought in the conflict of the 1990s and ruled Armenia for the past 20 years. He evidently feels a need to assert his national security credentials and reassure the Karabakh Armenians that he stands for them as well. But he is probably also being quite sincere. Most Armenians share a “no compromise” outlook toward the region. In a 2016 radio interview, Pashinian said, “There is no land to hand over to Azerbaijan.”
The danger here is that if an Armenian leader openly asserts sovereignty over Nagorny Karabakh and says that the Azerbaijani lands around it, which Armenian forces captured in 1993-1994, cannot be returned, there is nothing left to negotiate about with Baku, and the two sides are back on the road to war. The Four-Day War of 2016, which claimed about 200 lives, is a recent grim reminder of how costly this can be. The ceasefire continues to be broken, with an Azerbaijani soldier reported killed on May 20.
For those who watch the conflict from afar, the contours of a workable Karabakh peace agreement are fairly clear. They approximate the Basic Principles document, drawn up by the mediators of the OSCE’s Minsk Group. There are two essential elements: that Azerbaijan recognizes the Karabakh Armenians’ right to self-govern; and that the Armenian side gives up the territory it controls around Karabakh, with the exception of a land corridor to Armenia. It also helps if the issue of the final status of Nagorny Karabakh—the question which kicked off the whole conflict in 1988—remains sufficiently ambiguous to allow the sides to try to agree on other issues first.
The ideas are sound—but few in the region still believe in them. That is because over the past fifteen years the process has become what one former diplomat called “kabuki negotiations.” Each side strikes poses and does just enough to keep the OSCE mediators in a job, but no serious work is done or real progress is made. The internationals also tend to go through the motions. The conflict has slipped way down the agenda of the United States—although, fortunately, the Trump administration resisted the temptation to abandon an American mediating role and appointed a new U.S negotiator, Andrew Schofer.
A new Armenian government with public legitimacy changes that cozy situation. So far, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev—who is certainly capable of aggressive rhetoric against Armenia—has done the right thing by keeping quiet, leaving his defense minister to make some typically bellicose comments and the foreign ministry spokesman to object in a slightly more diplomatic manner.
But how long will the Azerbaijani president keep his vow of silence? In what could be a protracted election campaign, Pashinian and his comrades will not want to sound conciliatory on this issue for fear of having their patriotic credentials questioned. It could be many months before there is a new, consolidated Armenian policy on the conflict.
If the process survives in the short term, there are positive scenarios. New thinking is needed and may be provided by Armenia’s new foreign minister, Zohrab Mnatskanian, who replaces the hyper-cautious Eduard Nalbandian. Mnatskanian was a well-respected lead negotiator in the country’s Association Agreement talks with the European Union, curtailed at the last minute in 2013. The EU is one of several actors who can breathe some more life into this process, by playing a more active role to support the formal negotiators of the Minsk Group.
If political point-scoring can ever be left aside, the debate about how the Karabakh Armenians should take part in the talks is also a relevant one. After all, their homeland is the original subject of the dispute. They did take part until 1998, when Robert Kocharian, formerly the leader of the Karabakh Armenians, became president of Armenia and decided he could speak on their behalf. That suited Azerbaijan, which wants to frame the conflict as being only between Baku and Yerevan. But the voices of the Karabakh Armenians—as in a different way, those of the displaced Karabakh Azerbaijanis—do need to be heeded. Including them on the inside would also of course be a test of whether they have something constructive to contribute.
In short, a moribund peace process is in need of reinvigorating, but Armenia’s new leaders need to be careful how they use the legitimacy they have won from the street. The Karabakh negotiating process is a delicate structure. Its collapse would point only one way, toward new conflict.
Comments(12)
When it comes to the Karabagh issue, one must consider the historical context in which the Armenians have full legitimacy not only to the land of Soviet-made of ''Nagorno-Karabagh'', but also to the lands surrounding it, as they are an integral part of historical Artsakh. The name ''Nagorno'' means mountainous. Armenians have liberated their Artsakh as a whole, not only the mountainous part. Also, Armenians have been persecuted by the Azeris and Turks alike, in the last century. As a consequence, giving away even the surrounding regions to Azerbaijan will be a National security huge risk for the Armenians. The Soviet Russians already gave away Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan, without Armenia's consent (Treaty of Moscow). As a result, Azerbaijan depopulated Nakhichevan of Armenians, in the 1960s, and made it majority Azeri. The Karabgh conflict in the 1980s emerged because of Nakhichevan's depopulation of Armenians. As long as Azerbaijan's and Turkey's ultimate goal is to eradicate Armenians from their homeland, Armenians cannot risk to give away an inch of their homeland back to Azerbaijan, who with Turkey, firmly denies the Armenian Genocide. In addition, the Treaty of Kars/Moscow cannot be considered legitimate as they were forced upon the Republic of Armenia with a threat from both Attaturk and Russian SSR if not implemented. Plus, the Treaties have no legal foundation and recognition as they were signed by 2 internationally non-recognized entities: the Attaturk illegal-government/forces and Lenin's Russian SSR. More recently, Turkey violated Article XVII of the Treaty of Kars by closing its borders to Armenia. How should Armenia consider to give away surrounding regions of Karabagh, when it it is under constant threat of annihilation from Turkey and Azerbaijan with the violation of the Treaty of Kars by one of its initiators (Turkey) being the obvious prove of it? How can Armenia recognize the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan, when the so-called internationally recognized Treaty of Kars is not respected and, even more, used as a threat against Armenia; as if the Treaty of Kars wasn't and is still not another threat to cut the territories of Armenia and put the country under siege from every side. This proves that the Treaty of Kars and Moscow need to be revised, because the decision made by Stalin on the status of Karabagh is intimately linked with the goals of these treaties, while Karabagh is de facto and legitimately part of Armenia.
Armenians in the Caucasus have never been. They were first resettled in the 18th century by the Russian Emperor Peter the First. There are a lot of archival documents, real facts.. I am not talking about the Wikipedia. Armenia was established on the ancestral lands of Azerbaijan where until the 20th century, there were the Khanests of Irevan, including the Karabakh Khanate. All place names in the Turkish language. Do not deceive people and engage in falsification of history here. Stealing Albanian history and Albanian churches is the national treasure of the Armenians. Rhetoric question, where is the fortress Irevan? In the recent past, a monument was erected in connection with the 150th anniversary of the resettled Armenians in Karabakh. It was erected and destroyed by the Armenians themselves. Why? Turkey offered to open all archival documents. Why do not you want to admit that all you do is just hide and falsify the historical facts. As for the article, I consider it appropriate. With Pashinyan's coming to power, nothing good will change in Armenia. All strategic facilities and infrastructure belong to Russia. There is no way out to the outside world. Neighbors, Iran is under sanctions, the road through Georgia is also closed because of the conflict with Russia. Turkey and Azerbaijan, too, were closed the borders because of the conflict in Karabakh. Without the resolution of this conflict, nothing will change for the better, whoever came to power in Armenia.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Every single one of us has a direct ancestor (be it grandparent or great grandparent or great aunt/uncle etc) murdered by the Turks, without exception. Now that our numbers are 11 million plus around the world, we cannot let this happen again. We don't have the defenses that Israel has (being surrounded by hostile neighbours), but we do have the same issues in that respect and our lands are not negotiable. Hopefully, all the world will recognize the Armenian Genocide and will act accordingly. Restitution and peace to Armenia.
Gasim Mamadov, Armenians have been in Artsakh for at least 3 000 years. It has been a province of historical Armenia for centuries; it was one of the provinces (10th) of the Kingdom of Armenia, under Artashesian Dynasty (180 B.C). It was ruled from the first days by Armenian princes and governors, the population being totally Armenian, UNTIL THE TURKIC INVASIONS IN THE 900s AND 1000s. During Medieval periods and the Arab empires, Artsakh was ruled as an independent principality under many Armenian dynastic rules (the Khamsa), then mainly by the House of Khachen. It was then conquered by the Safavid Empire in 1500s. During Safavid rule, Armenians of Nakhichevan and Artsakh were enslaved to be recruited in Safavid armies, courts and governmental positions(the ''Third party policy'' of the Safavid). Shah Abbas I deported around 300 000 to 500 000 Armenians from Nakhichevan in 1600s, then numerous other smaller scale deportations were undertaken, eventually making Nakhichevan and Artsakh regions around 40% Armenian, 50% Turk-Azeri, 10% other ethnicities. It was only after the Safavid invasion that Karabagh, (which is the Turkish translation of Armenian Artsakh: Ar (God) Tsakh (garden) Ar-tsakh, God's-garden), also known as Kingdom of Artsakh (under the House of Khachen with the Armenian Hassan-Jalalian dynasty) that the Karabgh Khanate (1748-1822) was established with Tatar-Turk (Azeri) Panah Ali Khan as the governor under Iranian suzerainty, until the Russian invasion in 1806. You cannot claim that under 50 years of ''Azerbaijani'' rule, Karabagh became Azerbaijan's land. While it is true that the numbers show that the Armenians formed a minority during Safavid rule in Artsakh and Nakhichevan, due to the Safavid's numerous deportation policies towards Armenians, doesn't mean that Armenians were settlers when they came back to their homeland (Artsakh and Nakhichevan) in the 18-19th century, under Russian Tsar's protection; it doesn't means that Armenians were occupiers when they came back in the 19th century, but they rather returned to their homes after horrible enslavement policies of the Safavid because Artsakh was thus living under Christian ruled Russian empire. Armenians are not newcomers in Artsakh in the 18-19th century, they were there since time immemorial. There forced migration into deep Persia by the Persian rulers made them temporarily a minority in Artsakh and Nakhichevan, but it was, it is and will be Armenians' land.
Pashinyan is an old Elchibey. He won’t last for more than a year. His uncompromising hardline stance against peace without the Karabakh region as a part of Azerbaijan will lead him to ultimate failure.
"Yet all this promise and hope could be swept away if Armenia’s new government gets one thing wrong: its stance on the unresolved Nagorny Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan" Promise and Hope for WHOM? Oh that's right, a veiled threat on behalf of western oil interests. De Waal claims Armenia better not claim sovereignty on Karabakh, and wants Armenian lands handed to the artificially created Azerbaijan, but is deafly silent when the tin pot dictator of Baku asserts his "sovereignty" over all of Armenia. There is one thing you western oil interest pundits haven't been able to grasp for decades about this conflict. The rules of war are that the initiator is held responsible for the war itself, and the winner is also the one which will be dictating terms. All the rest of your rhetoric is a waste of time. But good luck if you believe that Armenia has any lands to give to Turks and Azeris. Will that cause war? Maybe, but the lesson to the Turkic-Azeri world will be a lot worse than last time for Azerbaijan.
Karabakh is for azerbaijan ... trying to being good relation 8n naibhour oglf kafkaz countries ..
Thomas de Waal you are a pseudo-specialist on Karabakh issue! Really you are going to ignore what is currently happening in the region as whole? There are currently a genocide of Christians happening in Middle East! There are countries being torn apart by sectarian and ethnic wars. Everyone is fighting everyone! Look at Syria, Iraq or Yemen! Turkey is occupying parts of Syria and Iraq. Many borders will change for good. People have been moving in millions from one place to another. Do you really think Karabakh issue just exists by itself and somehow is bound by other rules? Only a complete fool will trust dictator Aliev. Yes negotiations is pointless with a bloody dictator who is not elected or supported by the majority of population he claims to represent. Until there is a regime change in Azerbaijan, these negotiations are only good to keep a foolish dictator from starting a new war.
When it comes to the Karabagh issue, one must consider the historical context in which the Armenians have full legitimacy not only to the land of Soviet-made of ''Nagorno-Karabagh'', but also to the lands surrounding it, as they are an integral part of historical Artsakh. The name ''Nagorno'' means mountainous. Armenians have liberated their Artsakh as a whole, not only the mountainous part. Also, Armenians have been persecuted by the Azeris and Turks alike, in the last century. As a consequence, giving away even the surrounding regions to Azerbaijan will be a National security huge risk for the Armenians. The Soviet Russians already gave away Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan, without Armenia's consent (Treaty of Moscow). As a result, Azerbaijan depopulated Nakhichevan of Armenians, in the 1960s, and made it majority Azeri. The Karabgh conflict in the 1980s emerged because of Nakhichevan's depopulation of Armenians. As long as Azerbaijan's and Turkey's ultimate goal is to eradicate Armenians from their homeland, Armenians cannot risk to give away an inch of their homeland back to Azerbaijan, who with Turkey, firmly denies the Armenian Genocide. In addition, the Treaty of Kars/Moscow cannot be considered legitimate as they were forced upon the Republic of Armenia with a threat from both Attaturk and Russian SSR if not implemented. Plus, the Treaties have no legal foundation and recognition as they were signed by 2 internationally non-recognized entities: the Attaturk illegal-government/forces and Lenin's Russian SSR. More recently, Turkey violated Article XVII of the Treaty of Kars by closing its borders to Armenia. How should Armenia consider to give away surrounding regions of Karabagh, when it it is under constant threat of annihilation from Turkey and Azerbaijan with the violation of the Treaty of Kars by one of its initiators (Turkey) being the obvious prove of it? How can Armenia recognize the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan, when the so-called internationally recognized Treaty of Kars is not respected and, even more, used as a threat against Armenia; as if the Treaty of Kars wasn't and is still not another threat to cut the territories of Armenia and put the country under siege from every side. This proves that the Treaty of Kars and Moscow need to be revised, because the decision made by Stalin on the status of Karabagh is intimately linked with the goals of these treaties, while Karabagh is de facto and legitimately part of Armenia.
Commentator John already stated the whole historical background behind the so-called Karabakh Conflict (in fact, Artsakh, its historical name). I don't think many people, back in the days of now gone Panoramio, took the time of taking a look at the many photos, the local armenian people shared about the numerous armenian historical ruins, and other cultural treasures of the Armenian Culture; scattered all around the majority of the territory of to so-called ''occupied lands'' (said through azerbaijani stance). All of these historical relics you could find even outside the old political limits of the NKO (under soviet rule), are silent testimony of this people's parts; and on their own explains the reason behind this conflict. And as commenter John pointed out, the soviets are one of the main culprits behind this gross historical mistakes. Armenia (Yerevan) is right to claim the current lands as part of its sovereignty, since it wasn't Yerevan the party which voluntarily renounced to these lands... A foreign occupant, colonial power, took decision on the fate of these lands... Without Even Taking Into Account the voice, or the rightful pertenence of these lands to the armenian people. The soviets just took a decision aimed at luring the turks (Turkey) into the soviet sphere of influence. In order to achieve that, the soviet began over-benefiting the azeries (following turkish opinions) with land that wasn't even part of any ''azerbaijani historical land''. In the long term, this didn't work at all... but at any later time the occupant power (Moscow) reverted the wrongdoings. No doubt that the whole Karabakh conflict, it is not a cause in itself... it is a consequence of previous soviet-turkish anti-armenian policies (aimed at their surrendering, as well as disconnecting them from the West), and all the historical injustices committed by both Ankara and Moscow. Let's not forget too the Armenian Genocide... the fundamental motive behind this conflict. The International Community must admit they had committed a serious, terrible mistake, by recognizing the azerbaijani borders as part of some sort of ''historical homeland''. The International Community just recognized the borders ''As It Is''... just because they were in a hurry to secure the new independent states from a possible future muscovite reconquista. They should have taken a look at why the conflict started and should have placed the common armenian-azerbaijani border as Disputed, pending resolution.
Final part. Of course, the mistakes were already committed by the foreign powers (especially the West), so now we have to deal with this accordingly. The ''International stance'' (represented by the OSCE Minsk Group) now considers that Azerbaijan's ''original borders'' are being violated by ''Armenia-proper sponsored separatists''. The whole problem is terrible addressed (classic western problem, of course), so it is quite obvious to see the Peace Process stalled. It is even natural. Because the current basis of the ''Peace Process'' is already cracked (i hope this kind of basis don't make it into a formal treaty... because someday it will collapse anyways). The problem behind the so-called ''armenian separatism'', it is not of political nature (i.e. Transdniester), purely ethnic and/or religious nature (Bosnia, Kosovo), or a consequence of regional geopolitics (Afghanistan, Myanmar, Donbas, Transdniester, Abkhasia and South Osetia). It is a ''Triforce'': Historical-Ethnic-Religious (in short, civilizational conflict). It is the fight to reverse the before-mentioned injustices committed towards them since the very start of the Armenian Genocide, and how the world tolerated Turkey's crimes, and signed some unacceptable treaties with Ankara. So trying yo limit the ''solution'' to the NKO and a ''land corridor''... it equals at laughing at the face of the whole armenian people (including the Diaspora). Of course the azerbaijanis wouldn't care to sign any kind of treaty, if no ''occupied land'' is returned at all. First of all, the whole original borders of the NKO must be restored (in this case, Shahumian district). NKR should retain (using the AZ admin. map) Kalbajar, Lachin, and Qubadli districts. While Zangilan, Fizuli, Jabrayil, and occupied lands of Agdam should be given to Azerbaijan. Agdam district should be placed under UN Peacekeeping Mission for some time, to oversee the regional stability. The 3 before-mentioned district being recognized as armenian, are of key importance to secure peace, as well as the proper economic viability of the local economy. A land corridor not only doesn't guarantee the armenian's historical and economic rights there, but also may embolden (in the future) Baku to take threatening actions on this area, to force Out-Of The-Treaty concessions from Stepanakert and Yerevan. Of course, Aliyev must understand that this region will never ''return'' to Baku's rule. That's for sure.
How did Alyev do the "right thing" and Pashinyan did the "wrong thing" ? Pashinyan talks about Karabakh an enclave that has been majority Armenian since time immemorial, while Aliyev not so long ago called for conquest of the Republic of Armenia not even just Karabakh. So Aloyev is allowed to make such remarks while Pashinyan must watch out not to upset Azeris? You should have written these warnings to Azeris who have derailed any peace attempts and whose public is brainwashed to hate Armenians beyond repair. There is nothing we can do or say to change that. So no Pashinyan should not be careful and instead go ahead and recognize Artsakh's independence and so should the rest of the civilized world!
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.